M.C.D. Vs. RAMESHWAR DAYAL AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case, the respondent was convicted under Sec. 7 read with Sec. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 on account of a sample of cows milk taken from him by a Food Inspector being found to be adulterated because it was substantially deficient in milk fat. The respondent was also sentenced for selling milk without a licence. The sentence imposed was one year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 3,000.00 on account of selling adulterated milk and six months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000.00 for selling the same without a licence. On appeal by the accused to the Additional Sessions Judge the accused was acquitted of selling milk without a licence but the conviction for selling adulterated milk was affirmed though the sentence was reduced to a fine of Rs. 2,000.00 only. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi being the prosecutor did not file any appeal against the acquittal but challenged the reduction of sentence on the ground of selling adulterated milk and that is the subject-matter of the present revision. Notice has been issued to the respondent who is un-represented by a counsel-and no one is present on his behalf to-day.

(2.) I have heard the counsel for the petitioner who challenges the reduction of the sentence on the ground that there is no adequate reason for -reducing the same under the proviso to Sec. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. At the relevant time for adequate and special reason the court could impose a lesser sentence than the normal minimum of six months. The question for consideration is whether there are sufficient adequate and special reasons in this case to justify the reduction in sentence.

(3.) The defence of the accused in this case was that he was not a seller of milk and that he was physically handicapped. On the other hand, the case of the prosecution was that the accused was carrying 40 litres of milk on a bicycle when the sample was taken. The prosecution produced two Food Inspectors of the Municipal Corporation and Shri Kimti Lal, a food vendor having a shop in Kamla Market as their witnesses. There was another witness but he was declared hostile. According to the prosecution witnesses the accused was carrying 40 litres of milk on a bicycle and the sample was taken in the usual course. On the other hand, the case of the accused was that he had purchased a small quantity of milk from Kimti Lal and he was carrying the same in three small cans for his own domestic use and for giving it to two of his neighbours. It was alleged that the prosecution case was false. It was also the case of the accused that he did not sell milk. As regards the defence of the accused that he could not drive a bicycle and he could not carry weight, the magistrate thought it fit to send him to the Police Surgeon for physical verification. The Police Surgeon confirmed that the accused's hands were wested and his muscles were also weak, but he was not wholly handicapped. This Police Surgeon was examined as a defence witness by the accused. He was cross-examined by the prosecution when he stated that the accused could not carry a weight of above 5kgs. and he also stated that he could not drive a bicycle but later said that he might be able to drive a bicycle if he knew how to drive it. It is apparent that the courts below have not accepted the defence version that it was a false case and they have also not accepted the version that the accused was so physically handicapped that he could not have carried milk on a bicycle and could not have driven a bicycle, but, the lower appellate court has found that this is a reason for driving a lesser sentence to the accused. It was also stated in the lower appellate court's judgment that the accused had a big family to support and he was handicapped and hence the sentence of fine was sufficient to meet the ends of justice.